25 r gokul raj and dr s nirmala devi

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS AND ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS R. Gokul Raj, Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of Education, Institute of Advanced Study in Education (Autonomous), Saidapet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-600015 S. Nirmala Devi, Ph. D. Principal, Institute of Advanced Study in Education (Autonomous), Saidapet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-600015 Abstract The main objective of this investigation is to find out the level of acquisition of Science Process Skills and whether there is any significant difference exists in the dimensions of Science Process Skills of high school students with respect to few personal variables. For the purpose of this investigation the researcher has followed normative survey method. Sample consists of 1000 IXth standard students distributed evenly from5 districts of Tamil Nadu (includes boys [466] and girls [534] both Tamil and English medium students) from government, government aided and private schools. Samples were selected using random sampling techniques. The Science Process Skills Inventory was constructed and validated by the researcher used for this investigation. Collected data were analyzed using appropriate statistical techniques. The major findings of the research show that there is very low positive correlation (0.230) between the science process skills and achievement in science among high school students.

Key Words: Science Process Skills, Scientific inquiry, Achievement in Science Introduction: Science Process Skills (SPS) are defined as transferable skills that are applicable to many sciences and that reflect the behaviors of scientists. They are the skills that facilitate learning in physical sciences, ensure active student participation, have students develop the sense of undertaking responsibility in their own learning, increase the permanence of learning, and also have students acquire research ways and methods, that is, they ensure thinking and behaving like a scientist. For this reason, it is an important method in teaching science lessons. SPS are the building-blocks of critical thinking and inquiry in science (Ostlund, 1992).

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2435

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

Science Process Skills are based on scientific inquiry and teaching science by inquiry involves teaching students science process skills, critical thinking, scientific reasoning skills used by scientists (Pratt & Hackett, 1998) and inquiry is defined as an approach to teaching, the acts scientists use in doing science and it can be a highly effective teaching method that helps students for understanding of concepts and use of process skills (Yager & Akçay, 2010).

Science Process Skills are essential for teaching science content knowledge and scientific inquiry because teachers who have a poor understanding of the science process skills are less likely to have a positive attitude towards them and are, therefore, less likely to teach them to their students (Cain, 2002). Science Process Skills instruction also promotes positive attitudes toward science among students; thus, the avoidance of teaching the process skills can be detrimental (Bilgin, 2006). Many researches stated that teachers who are deficient in the science process skills are less equipped to use inquiry in their classrooms (Aka et al., 2010; Lotter et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2009). Similarly, teachers who are not familiar with science processes or have low interest in science processes are not likely to teach science by inquiry. Teachers’ competence in the science process skills has also been found to promote a positive attitude towards science (Bilgin, 2006).

Science Process Skills are in two categories which are basic and integrated skills. Basic process skills include observing, inferring, measuring, communicating, classifying, predicting, using time space relations and using numbers. Integrated process skills include controlling variables, defining operationally, formulating hypotheses, formulating models, interpreting data and experimenting,).

Objectives of the study: 1. To find out the level of acquisition of Science Process Skills among high school students. 2. To find out whether there is any significant differences exist in the dimensions of Science Process Skills of high school students with respect to the following personal variables. 3. 1. Gender 2. Locality 3. Medium of instruction 4. Type of management To find out the relationship between Science Process Skills and Achievement in Science among high school students.

Hypotheses of the study: The following hypotheses were formulated based on the objectives of the study. 1. There is no significant difference in Science Process Skills of IXth standard students based on Gender, Locality, Medium of instruction, and Type of management with respect to the following dimensions: (i) Measuring, (ii) Observing, (iii) Classifying, (iv) Inferring, (v) NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2436

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

Predicting and (vi) Communicating. 2. There is no relationship between Science Process Skills and Achievement in Science of high school students.

Research Method: For the purpose of investigation the researcher has followed the normative survey method.

Sample and Sampling technique: Sample consists of 1000 IXth standard students distributed evenly from five districts of Tamil Nadu (includes boys [466] and girls [534] of both Tamil and English medium students) from government, government aided and private schools. Samples were selected using random sampling technique.

Description of the tool: The Science Process Skills inventory was constructed and validated by the investigator used for this investigation. The tool was framed using six dimensions (Measuring, Observing, Classifying, Inferring, Predicting and Communicating) with 51 multiple choice questions and 4 options for each statement. Each right question carries one mark, for wrong and omitted questions no mark is given.

Statistical analysis of data: Mean, Standard deviation, T- test, ANOVA and Correlation coefficient are statistical methods were applied to analyses and interpretation of the scores on collected data on each dimension of science process skills.

TABLE – 1: Level of Science Process Skills of High School Students S. No.

Variable

1

Science Skills

Category Low Process Average High

Marks

Frequency

Percentage

0-15 16-35

167 730

16 73

36-51

103

11

Results of the above table shows that the level of science process skills is average in nature.

TABLE – 2: Mean scores of Science Process Skills of High School Students Dimensions of Process Skill Measuring Observing Classifying Inferring Predicting Communicating Total

Science

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

N

Mean value

1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

46.44 41.77 53.85 43.5 38.77 64.53 49.64 www.srjis.com

Page 2437

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

It is observed from the above table the various dimensions of science process skills the mean scores of communicating skill is higher than the rest of other dimension.

Testing of Hypotheses: 1. There is no significant difference in science process skills of IXth standard students based on Gender, Locality, Medium of instruction, and Type of management with respect to the following dimensions: (i) Measuring, (ii) Observing, (iii) Classifying, (iv) Inferring, (v) Predicting and (vi) Communicating. 2. There is no relationship between science process skills and achievement in science of high school students.

TABLE -3: Comparison of Mean Scores: Gender wise Analysis of Science Process Skills Dimensions of Science Gender N Process Skill

Mean

S.D.

t-test

Measuring

Male Female

466 534

45.79 47.00

18.28 19.93

1.00

Observing

Male Female

466 534

40.40 42.96

19.48 19.63

2.06*

Male Female Male Female Male Female

466 534 466 534 466 534

52.98 54.60 42.86 44.06 37.16 40.17

22.26 24.24 18.12 19.38 24.67 22.93

Communicating

Male Female

466 534

64.12 64.89

26.16 26.28

0.46

Total

Male Female

466 534

48.78 50.39

15.83 17.28

1.52

Classifying Inferring Predicting

1.09 1.01 1.90

*denotes significance at 0.05 level From the above table, it is inferred that the calculated‘t’ value is found to be 2.06, which is greater than the table value. Hence, there is a significant difference in the dimension (observing) of science process skills. It shows that the male and female students differ significantly with respect to the observing skill. Hence, the null hypothesis is partially accepted.

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2438

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

TABLE – 4: Comparison of Mean Scores: Locality wise Analysis of Science Process Skills Dimensions of Science Locality Process Skill Rural Measuring Urban Rural Observing Urban Classifying

Rural Urban

N

Mean

S.D.

494 506 494 506

44.50 48.34 42.02 41.53

18.51 19.64 19.44 19.74

494 506

52.60 55.07

22.90 23.72

Rural 494 43.03 19.68 Urban 506 43.96 17.91 Rural 494 37.65 23.00 Predicting Urban 506 39.86 24.51 Rural 494 64.40 25.93 Communicating Urban 506 64.66 26.51 Rural 494 48.80 16.44 Total Urban 506 50.46 16.79 **denotes significance at 0.01 level Inferring

t-test 3.19** 0.39 1.68 0.78 1.47 0.16 1.58

From the above table, it is inferred that the calculated‘t’ value is found to be 3.19, which is greater than the table value. Hence there is a significant difference in the dimension (measuring) of science process skills. It shows that the urban and rural students differ significantly with respect to measuring skill. Hence the null hypothesis is partially accepted.

TABLE – 5: Comparison of Mean Scores: Medium of instruction wise Analysis of Science Process Skills Dimensions of Medium of Science N Instruction Process Skill Tamil 601 Measuring English 399

Mean

S.D.

t-test

45.54 47.80

18.04 20.72

1.82

Observing

Tamil English

601 399

41.19 42.64

19.41 19.84

1.15

Classifying

Tamil English

601 399

52.96 55.18

22.46 24.58

1.48

Inferring

Tamil English

601 399

41.07 47.15

16.63 21.17

5.07**

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2439

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

Predicting

Tamil English

601 399

37.96 39.97

22.72 25.31

1.31

Communicating

Tamil English

601 399

61.95 68.42

25.57 26.73

3.85**

Total

Tamil English

601 399

48.26 51.72

15.57 17.93

3.24**

** denotes significance at 0.01 level From the above table, it is inferred that the calculated ‘t’ value is found to be 5.07 (Inferring skill), 3.85(Communicating skill) and 3.24 (total) which is greater than the table value.

Hence there is a significant difference in the dimension of (inferring, communicating and total scores) science process skills. It shows that the Tamil and English medium students differ significantly with respect to inferring and communicating skills and total science process skills.

The rest of them are not differing significantly. Hence the null hypothesis is partially accepted.

TABLE – 6: Comparison of Mean Scores: Type of Management wise Analysis of Science Process Skills Dimensions of Source of Science variation Process Skill Between groups Measuring Within groups Total Between groups Observing Within groups Total Between groups Classifying Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Inferring Total

Df

Sum of squares

2 997 999 2 997 999 2 997 999 2 997

92.56 366254.63 366347.19 1175.62 382662.05 383837.67 4646.01 538716.92 543362.93 9160.78 343641.92

999

352802.70

Between groups Within groups

2 997

Total Between groups Communicating Within groups Total

999 2 997 999

Predicting

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

Mean squares

of

F - ratio

46.28 367.36 587.81 383.81 2323.00 540.34

0.13

1.53 4.30*

4580.39 344.68

13.29**

3129.19 562761.83

1564.60 564.46

2.77

565891.02 15411.68 671438.48 686850.16

7705.84 673.46

www.srjis.com

11.44**

Page 2440

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

Total

Between groups 2 3725.64 1862.82 Within groups 997 273099.11 273.92 Total 999 276824.75 *denotes significance at 0.05 level, **denotes significance at 0.01 level

6.80**

From the above table, it is inferred that the dimensions of (inferring skill, communicating skill, classifying skill and total scores) science process skills with respect to type of management, the calculated ‘F’ ratio is greater than the table value. Hence there is a significant difference between Government, Govt. Aided and Matriculation school students.

TABLE – 7: Comparison of the relationship between Science Process Skills and Achievement in Science of High School Students Variable

N

R value

Level of Significance

Science process skills 1000 0.230 Not significant Achievement in science 1000 The result of the above table shows that there is no significant; there is a very low positive correlation found between science process skills and achievement in science of high school students.

Major finding of the study 1.

In accordance with science process skills, the level of communicating skills is high in

nature than the other dimensions (viz: Observing, Measuring, Classifying, Inferring, and Predicting) of science process skills.

2.

Mean scores of communicating skill is higher than the other dimension of science process

skills.

3.

Based on Gender the male and female students differ significantly in their science

process skills (Observing skill). There is no significant difference found in the rest of science process skills (Measuring, Classifying, Inferring, Predicting and Communicating).

4.

Based on Locality the urban and rural students differ significantly in their science

process skills (Measuring skill). There is no significant difference found in the rest of science process skills (Observing, Classifying, Inferring, Predicting and Communicating).

5.

Based on the Medium of Instruction the Tamil and English Medium students differ

significantly in their science process skills (Inferring and Communicating skills). There is no

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2441

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

significant difference found in the rest of science process skills (Observing, Measuring, Classifying, and Predicting).

6.

Based on Type of Management the students differ in the dimension of classifying,

communicating, inferring and total science process skills. Since the combinations of govt. and aided groups are highly significant than other combination groups. But other skills of science process skills with respect to type of school management, there is no significance different.

7.

There is a very low positive correlation between science process skills and achievement

in science of high school students.

Educational Implications 1. Science teachers should contribute to narrowing the gap between class room science and its application to daily life by emphasizing the contributions that laboratory activities could make in raising the learners’ various intellectual and procedural skill that are likely to be useful in their future careers.

2. Through constant motivation and encouragement during the teaching-learning activities in science the students can re-conceptualize their perceptions about science learning and they will be more involved in the activities.

3. Innovative and creative instructional styles may aid in facilitating a fun filled and

enjoyable

science environment.

Conclusion: Processes of science are the basic steps for the development of useful skills, right kind of interests, attitudes and values and in making teaching –learning process more dynamic, stimulating and meaningful. Since High school level is a period in which students will start thinking about their subject preferences and their future career, this study is of much use to suggest ways and means to develop the critical thinking skills and interest in science among the high school students.

References Aka Eİ., Güven E., & Aydoğdu, M (2010). Effect of Problem Solving Method on Science Process Skills and Academic Achievement. Journal of Turkey Science Education.

7(4):13-25.

Bhatt, P.C. (1988). Science process skills in teaching and learning. Common wealth publication:New Delhi.

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2442

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY / R. GOKUL RAJ & S. NIRMALA DEVI, (2435-2443)

Bilgin, I (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eighth grade students’ science process skills and attitudes toward science. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 1:27-36.

Cain, S (2002). Sciencing. (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., & Bonner, J.J (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44:1318-1347. doi: 10.1002/tea.20191.

Marshall, J.C., Horton, R., Igo. B. L., & Switzer DM (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 7:575596.

Padilla, Michael J. “The Science Process Skills.” Research Matters– to the Science Teacher no.

9004

(March

1,

1990)

Retrieved

from:

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/publications/research/skill.htm.

Pratt, H. & Hackett, J. (1998). Teaching science: the inquiry approach. Principal, 78(2), 2-20.

Ostlund, K.L. (1992). Science process skills: assessing hands-on student performance. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Yager, R.E. & Akçay, H. (2010). The advantages of an inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades. School Science & Mathematics, 110, 5-12.

NOV - DECEMBER, 2014. VOL-II/XV

www.srjis.com

Page 2443